Case Digest (G.R. No. 201074)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 201074)
Facts:
Spouses Ramon Sy and Anita Ng, Richard Sy, Josie Ong, William Sy and Jackeline De Lucia v. Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank Philippines) and Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 201074, October 19, 2016, Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (the Spouses Ramon Sy et al.) were sued by respondent Westmont Bank (now United Overseas Bank Philippines, later assigned to Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation or PDIC) in Civil Case No. 99-95945 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Manila, on a Complaint for Sum of Money dated August 30, 1999.
Westmont alleged that petitioners, doing business as Moondrops General Merchandising, obtained two loans evidenced by Promissory Note No. GP-5280 (P2,429,500.00, dated October 21, 1997) and Promissory Note No. GP-5285 (P4,000,000.00, dated November 25, 1997), plus signed Disclosure Statements and an earlier Continuing Suretyship Agreement (February 4, 1997). Westmont alleged petitioners defaulted and sent a demand letter dated August 27, 1999, before filing suit.
In their answer under oath petitioners denied key paragraphs of the complaint and alleged that the bank’s branch manager required them to sign blank promissory-note forms, later informed them their loan application was disapproved, and that the actual monies were obtained from a private lender, Amado Chua; petitioners produced a cashier’s check (P2,429,500.00) from Chua to support this. At pre-trial the parties agreed the sole issue was whether defendants obtained loans from Westmont totaling P6,429,500.00.
The RTC, in a Decision dated November 9, 2007, found for Westmont and rendered judgment for an aggregate sum (later stated at P20,573,948.66) with interest, attorney’s fees and costs; in an Order dated February 6, 2008 the RTC modified the fallo to itemize principal, interest and liquidated damages at 36% per annum and 20% attorney’s fees. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 90425). The CA, in an August 4, 2011 Decision (and a March 19, 2012 Resolution denying reconsideration), affirmed, holding that under Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court petitioners had failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes and thus those documents were deemed admitted.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. The Court initially dismissed the petition (July 4, 2012) but reinstated it on motion for reconsideration (June 15, 2015). PDIC later informed the Court it had become assignee of UOBP. The Supreme Court required and received respondents’ comments and petitioners’ reply before resolving the case.
Issues:
- Did petitioners specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes such that they complied with the requirements of Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court?
- Did respondent Westmont (UOBP/PDIC) prove that it delivered the proceeds of the loans to petitioners so as to perfect the alleged contracts of loan and sustain its complaint?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)